advocacy Blog

From time to time issues arise that relate to history-social science education where a response from the field is needed. Sometimes it is an action by the State School Board, the California Department of Education, or the U.S. Department of Education. Other times it is a piece of legislation that would effect social studies, funding, curriculum, assessment, instructional materials, time, etc. In these cases we share information with leadership and seek input from educators across the state. Keep up with changes across the state, and nationally, by reading our updates and providing your comments and insight on the issues.

With the advent of LCFF (local control funding formula) and LCAPs (local control accountability plans), advocates for more robust history-social science (HSS) education have an unprecedented opportunity. In this new era of "subsidiarity" as described by Governor Brown and the newly reauthorized ESSA, schools and local districts have greater autonomy from the state and federal government but greater responsibility to provide a comprehensive and well-rounded education for all students. While accountability isn't going away, LEAs (local education agencies) now have a greater say in how they will hold themselves accountable and how they will spend their LCFF funds, including curricular and instructional priorities.

This toolkit is designed to assist you in supporting high-quality history-social science education and influencing LEA decision makers in your community, including county offices of education, district and site officials, and their elected representatives to implement a well-rounded curriculum that provides all students the skills and understanding that come from robust economics, geography, history and civic education learning opportunities.

Talking Points and Rationale

Curricular Narrowing

Since the advent of high-stakes testing and API test scores derived solely from those test scores, History-Social Science (HSS) has been squeezed-out due to a proliferation of assessments that focus almost exclusively on English-language arts (ELA), math and, in more recent years, science. The erosion of HSS instructional time has been especially pronounced in grades K-8 where there are no statutory course mandates. While curricular narrowing hasn't been limited to California, as one of the states that led the high-stakes accountability movement in the early 1990s, this troubling phenomenon has been especially prevalent here.

The results speak for themselves, as voter and civic engagement continue to wane, our citizens are less informed about basic economics and personal finance, and students have lost touch with their historical and geographical context. Many young people lack the skills and dispositions to critically analyze information and civilly engage others when conflicts arise. The health and future of our Republic hangs in the balance.

LCAP Opportunity

Locally determined LCAPs present an unprecedented opportunity to turn things around. LEAs are now empowered to set their own curricular and programmatic priorities. They are no longer bound to an assessment and accountability regime that fixates on a narrow slice of K-12 curricula but to establish and monitor a comprehensive system that includes all of the core curriculum disciplines. Now is the time for our community schools to truly serve the best interest of our youth by offering them a robust and broad education that better prepares them for sustaining careers, higher education and civic responsibilities.

Purpose of Public Education

Educational leaders need to ask themselves: What is the fundamental purpose of public education? Or to put it another way, what justifies spending the hard-earned money of taxpayers to educate other people's children? At a bare minimum, taxpayers expect that mandatory elementary and secondary education will adequately prepare the next generation of Americans to be self-sufficient, responsible and contributing members of society and history-social science is the vehicle for that purpose. Anything short of that will inevitably lead to growing distrust and voter backlash against teachers, administrators and locally elected trustees.

An essential outcome of a well-rounded education must be the infusion of effective citizenship skills and understanding. In fact, this was the primary purpose behind the early “community schools” in a our nation’s history. Public and compelled education was primarily dedicated to teaching American students about both individual rights and collective rights as well as the obligations as citizens in order to sustain a fragile democracy from generation to generation.

Benefits of Robust HSS

To accomplish the fundamental mission of public education, every school must provide their students a rich curricula and inspiring programs, including robust history-social science, that engages students and encourages deep thinking and application of knowledge. Quality, balanced and in-depth social studies instruction and activities instill the core knowledge, analytical skills and intellectual dispositions to enable students to become life-learners and engaged citizens. Students who have participated in history-social science programs and courses understand that incoming data alone is insufficient on which to base decisions. They have learned to dig deeper from multiple sources, understand multiple perspectives, collaborate with their peers, and effectively communicate their positions with reasoning and logic. These are in-demand labor market skills, as well as critical elements of life-long learning. Every student deserves in-depth instruction of state, U.S. and world history; basic economics and personal finance; regional and global geography; and civic understandings of a democratic society.

LCAP Elements Fulfilled by HSS

Meaningful HSS will assist LEAs accomplish several of the 8 state priorities, which are Student Achievement, Student Engagement, School Climate, Course Access, Parental Involvement, Basic Services, Implementation of Common Core, and Other Student Outcomes. County/district/site programs should include specific history-social science activities, simulations, projects, and authentic assessment strategies (e.g., debate, mock trials, current events, community involvement, service learning, etc.) in the locally-developed LCAP. These programs and projects engage students and promote civic understanding in a 21st Century world, and touch upon several of the 8 state priorities mandated by law.

ESSA Federal Guidelines for a "Well-Rounded Education"

A"Key Policy Letter" signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the U. S. Department of Education was released on July 13, 2016 to provide guidance in the use of federal funds in state education programs. The letter clearly lists the essential components of a "well-rounded education." Geography, civic education/government, economics, and history are specifically listed. The letter can be accessed at:http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/160713.html

The Spring 2016 edition of the “Social Studies Review” (SSR) was solely dedicated to helping schools develop HSS-related programs, lesson plans and projects to include in their LCAPs. Under state law, each district/school will be required to include priority activities and student outcomes in their LCAPs, which must be updated and published annually. Those areas of the LCAP designated for "local determination" include the metrics for "college and career readiness" and ‘"other student achievement," as well as parts of the priority area called "school climate". The district can report the student outcomes in several of the areas at the same time.

The goal of the Spring 2016 Social Studies Review is to provide a ready-to-use resource that will help districts meet their reporting requirements by using student outcomes from measurable social studies performance activities. We recommend you request a copy of the SSR from CCSS to use in your advocacy efforts as well as provide ideas, suggestions, and templates for instructional use in the classroom. In it, you will find detailed explanations and illustrations for how your school/district could do the following:

Select a performance activity of yours that can be use in all classes in a grade level, such as in all grade 6, or all grade 10 World History classes. Ideally, the activity will be something that can be done several times during a school year, and will need to be repeated over several years.

Determine which skills listed on the College and Career Readiness Standards students will use doing this activity.

Match the activity to one of the nine rubrics in the rubric chapter in the SSR. For example, if students will create a project display board, select that rubric. If they will also write a persuasive essay, select the persuasive essay rubric as well. If they do a debate, select that rubric. Other rubrics are available to be used as presented or may easily be modified to fit the activity, grade level, or program. Several rubrics may be used if the activity has multiple dimensions.

If a district chooses to use a specific performance assessment as a multiple school or grade level measurement, score training should be provided in which scorers calibrate for consistency.

After each session of the activity, the student results will be scored and scores complied and averaged. The average score will go into the district LCAP report as evidence of growth during a school year, and from year to year as well.

The Spring 2016 Social Studies Review Vol. 54, Measuring Student Performance in Social Studies, is available to CCSS members on the www.ccss.org website under the Members tab.

This is an opportunity for everyone to chime in about what should-and should not-be a part of the 'next generation' of assessments in History Social Science in California, the yet-to-be developed assessments that will be added to the 'Smarter Balanced' assessments being given in Spring 2015, which include the three years of science testing required by federal legislation.

This is an opportunity not to be missed! But be quick: note the end date of April 17.

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (CDE)

CAASPP History-Social Science Stakeholder Survey

As stipulated in Education Code Section 60640 (c), the California Department of Education, in collaboration with Educational Testing Service, is gathering input from stakeholders regarding the possible inclusion of history–social science assessments as part of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) system. The input from stakeholders will be shared with State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson as he prepares recommendations for the State Board of Education.

If you were unable to attend the stakeholders meetings in person, this is your chance to voice your ideas. This survey will be open for submissions throughApril 17, 2015. Please share this survey with others. Thank you for giving your input!

History social science in California is one of the subjects the state is considering assessing as it looks to expand ‘beyond’ the ‘Smarter Balanced’ assessments in English and math. On Tuesday March 17 the Department of Education (CDE) and Educational Testing Service (ETS) had their first meeting to get a sense 'from the field' about wishes and comments about possible future social studies assessment. Divided into focus groups, teachers and other educators brainstormed both ideas for new assessments and critiques (of the old California Standards Tests). Observations and comments from this and a second meeting on Wednesday March 18, will ultimately go to State Superintendent Torlakson. His office is tasked to report to the Legislature and State Board about assessments in subjects other than English language arts and math (and the three years of science required by the federal ESEA) that would test 'the whole curriculum', in the words of the legislation requiring the report.

There were a general range of comments to the effect that the focus of any future assessment should stress processes (analysis, writing, debates, for example) and not so much specific content recall. There was mention of the 'C3' framework as a possible guide. There was considerable discussion of technology, from on line testing to and including 'robo-scoring' of student essays and interactive types of immediate responses to students allowing for both instant reporting and instant adaption of the assessments based on student responses.

CDE will compile the comments and observations made at this first meeting and go forward with next steps, which will include an on line survey open to educators in particular. The survey will be announced here, along with the URL, as soon as CDE posts it.

The Instructional Quality Commission has on its agenda for its Feb 5-6 meeting a new timeline for finishing the History Social Science Framework revision. The date of adoption of the new Framework will be moved from May 2015 to March 2016. No reasons were given in the posted timeline for the delay.

According to the new timeline, the IQC will 'analyze field review results and revise draft framework' from June to September 2015, and 'hold hearings and take action on draft framework' at a September 24-25 2015 meeting. A note is added that indicates this meeting is 'pending funding of the IQC'. The IQC is not funded in the state budget for work past summer 2015. If budgeted, there will be more opportunities for public input and also hearings at the IQC and State Board prior to adoption of the revised Framework.

The new timeline has publication of the Framework slated for Fall 2016.

Question: So when can we expect updated history social science textbooks in California, books that include events after about 1989…including the implosion of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Tiananmen Square protests and suppression in 1989; the Sept 11 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in New York and Washington DC; the resulting US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the election of the first African American US President….and the list goes on and on.

Answer: Not anytime real soon. Textbook publishers traditionally have up to 30 months after the adoption of a subject matter framework by the California State Board of Education (SBE) to submit new texts, based on the new framework, for review and adoption by the SBE and/or local districts. The current History Social Science Framework is going through the revision and update process right now.

Question: So. what is taking so long? Didn’t this Framework review begin a number of years ago?

Answer:Yes, it did, and the then Governor and Legislature froze the process in 2009 due to the decline in the state budget. Because this ’freezing’ was legislated, new legislation had to be passed to restart the process. Recent legislation put the process back on track to finish the review and update process.

The framework revision process is defined mostly by legislation and also policies set by the SBE. Framework development comes midway between standards development and textbook adoption. For a detailed explanation of the framework process alone, see www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/cefcfadoptprocess.asp.

To summarize: The process begins with the California State Content Standards. These are the statements of what students are to learn and be able to do, in each grade, in the various subject matter areas. Because the History Social Science State Standards are not being changed, revised, or replaced at the present time, for History Social Science, its revised Framework will be based on and come out of the current HSS state content standards, adding some specific content required by various pieces of legislation.

Legislation now empowers the SBE to move the revision forward. The SBE in turn has directed the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC), which replaced the state Curriculum Commission (actually: Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission) several years ago, to create a History Social Science Sub Committee that in turn contracts with writers and organizations to actually do the work of revision. The current IQC Sub Committee is co chaired by Bill Honig, former State Superintendent of Public Instruction in California, and Nancy McTygue, the Director of the California State History Subject Matter Project.

The Sub Committee meetings are public, and public comment and input is requested as the revision process is underway. There are several time periods of more than a month each when anyone can send recommendations to the subcommittee. For its most recent meeting on December 18, 671 comments and an additional several hundred emails were received. Some of these are quite lengthy; a summary of the comments alone ran to 255 pages on the Sub Committee agenda.

The Department of Education (CDE) also submits recommendation to the Sub Committee, and these include suggestions about inclusion of specific legislative requirements (For two examples: Recent legislation requires the inclusion in the Framework discussion of the Filipino role in World War II. Other legislation requires that achievements and issues faced by LGBT persons be included in the Framework; LGBT was added as a category to the list of those groups; specific ethnic minorities, women, disadvantaged) who were already defined as needing specific mention in the Framework.

More on the current status of all this later. To finish with the process: once the Sub Committee finishes its work and has a draft Framework revision, the draft is submitted to the full IQC for adoption (and any further revision). This step includes another time period for public comment and input. Once the IQC has finished the Draft, the IQC submits the Draft to the SBE for adoption. Again, public comment is taken and the SBE can make further revisions, or instruct the IQC to make them. Once the final revisions are made, the SBE adopts the Framework. At this point the 30 month time period for textbook development begins.

Question: OK, so where are we now in this process?

Answer: The Sub Committee met on December 18, discussed the public comments, the new draft introduction to the Framework submitted by Nancy McTygue as she had been tasked by the subcommittee, and the CDE recommendations.

The subcommittee met for roughly a half day on December 18, and heard public comments and also discussed some of the 671 comments already submitted.
Many of these comments were from specific groups, often opposing each other, who want more of their history, according to their particular perspective, included in the Framework. More comments included also intense, often emotional, and very opposing views on inclusion—or not--of LGBT issues. The challenge facing the subcommittee, and later the IQC, and still later the SBE, is how to accommodate these public comments, which the process requires to some degree. To fully grasp the breadth, depth, and intensity of the public comments received so far, please look at the 255 page summary of the comments, attachment (#4) to the subcommittee agenda, which is posted at www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cd/dechssmtg.asp. As the process moves forward, there will be more and more opportunities for public comment and input.

Question: The History Social Science Standards themselves are out of date. How would a process work that would revise and update these standards?

Answer: Currently there is no process to update or revise any of the existing content standards. Such would require specific legislation empowering the SBE to create and begin a process, which in the past has been pretty much the same as the Framework revision process described above: SBE would create a special task force, which would in turn appoint members, who would meet and write new standards. Depending on the starting point of standards development, writing new standards can take more than a year, possibly two. This process would include public comments both to the standards writing task force, the IQC, and later to the SBE. Once the SBE were to adopt new standards, then the entire Framework writing process would begin, again with the committees, the IQC, and of course several sessions of public comments. Once the new framework is adopted, the 30 month textbook development process would begin.

So…in the meantime…what do I do as a practical matter in my classroom?

The whole internet revolution…which is really another post 1989 world changing set of events… opens opportunities to go to original source documents (for one example: The Library of Congress. For another: The Yale History project). A host of websites have posted free lessons, most of which include source materials, for all grade levels in all social science discipline areas. Many of these are very much up to date, include recent events, and include various social science discipline perspectives. The California History Social Science Project site <chssp.ucdavis.edu>

has creative lessons that are aligned both to the California State History Social Standards and the California Common Core English Language Arts Standards. The History Project also has professional development programs at several locations around the state. Other sites are aligning their lessons to the Common Core English standards. As students do many of these lessons, they are also practicing—and improving—their ‘common core’ English language arts skills, in content. The teacher will need to provide context and perspective, and can have students get far more into the real world of social studies than has ever been possible by reliance totally or even mainly on textbooks.

Question: So when can we expect updated history social science textbooks in California, books that include events after about 1989…including the implosion of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Tiananmen Square protests and suppression in 1989; the Sept 11 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in New York and Washington DC; the resulting US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the election of the first African American US President….and the list goes on and on.

Answer: Not anytime real soon. Textbook publishers traditionally have up to 30 months after the adoption of a subject matter framework by the California State Board of Education (SBE) to submit new texts, based on the new framework, for review and adoption by the SBE and/or local districts. The current History Social Science Framework is going through the revision and update process right now.

Question: So. what is taking so long? Didn’t this Framework review begin a number of years ago?

Answer:Yes, it did, and the then Governor and Legislature froze the process in 2009 due to the decline in the state budget. Because this’freezing’ was legislated, new legislation had to be passed to restart the process. Recent legislation put the process back on track to finish the review and update process.

The framework revision process is defined mostly by legislation and also policies set by the SBE. Framework development comes midway between standards development and textbook adoption. For a detailed explanation of the framework process alone, see www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/cefcfadoptprocess.asp. www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/cefcfadoptprocess.asp.

To summarize: The process begins with the California State Content Standards. These are the statements of what students are to learn and be able to do, in each grade, in the various subject matter areas. Because the History Social Science State Standards are not being changed, revised, or replaced at the present time, for History Social Science, its revised Framework will be based on and come out of the current HSS state content standards, adding some specific content required by various pieces of legislation.

Legislation now empowers the SBE to move the revision forward. The SBE in turn has directed the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC), which replaced the state Curriculum Commission (actually: Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission) several years ago, to create a History Social Science Sub Committee that in turn contracts with writers and organizations to actually do the work of revision. The current IQC Sub Committee is co chaired by Bill Honig, former State Superintendent of Public Instruction in California, and Nancy McTygue, the Director of the California State History Subject Matter Project.

The Sub Committee meetings are public, and public comment and input is requested as the revision process is underway. There are several time periods of more than a month each when anyone can send recommendations to the subcommittee. For its most recent meeting on December 18, 671 comments and an additional several hundred emails were received. Some of these are quite lengthy; a summary of the comments alone ran to 255 pages on the Sub Committee agenda.

The Department of Education (CDE) also submits recommendation to the Sub Committee, and these include suggestions about inclusion of specific legislative requirements (For two examples: Recent legislation requires the inclusion in the Framework discussion of the Filipino role in World War II. Other legislation requires that achievements and issues faced by LGBT persons be included in the Framework; LGBT was added as a category to the list of those groups; specific ethnic minorities, women, disadvantaged) who were already defined as needing specific mention in the Framework.

More on the current status of all this later. To finish with the process: once the Sub Committee finishes its work and has a draft Framework revision, the draft is submitted to the full IQC for adoption (and any further revision). This step includes another time period for public comment and input. Once the IQC has finished the Draft, the IQC submits the Draft to the SBE for adoption. Again, public comment is taken and the SBE can make further revisions, or instruct the IQC to make them. Once the final revisions are made, the SBE adopts the Framework. At this point the 30 month time period for textbook development begins.

Question: OK, so where are we now in this process?

Answer: The Sub Committee met on December 18, discussed the public comments, the new draft introduction to the Framework submitted by Nancy McTygue as she had been tasked by the subcommittee, and the CDE recommendations.

The subcommittee met for roughly a half day on December 18, and heard public comments and also discussed some of the 671 comments already submitted.
Many of these comments were from specific groups, often opposing each other, who want more of their history, according to their particular perspective, included in the Framework. More comments included also intense, often emotional, and very opposing views on inclusion--or not--of LGBT issues. The challenge facing the subcommittee, and later the IQC, and still later the SBE, is how to accommodate these public comments, which the process requires to some degree. To fully grasp the breadth, depth, and intensity of the public comments received so far, please look at the 255 page summary of the comments, attachment (#4) to the subcommittee agenda, which is posted at www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cd/dechssmtg.asp.www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cd/dechssmtg.asp. As the process moves forward, there will be more and more opportunities for public comment and input.

Question: The History Social Science Standards themselves are out of date. How would a process work that would revise and update these standards?

Answer: Currently there is no process to update or revise any of the existing content standards. Such would require specific legislation empowering the SBE to create and begin a process, which in the past has been pretty much the same as the Framework revision process described above: SBE would create a special task force, which would in turn appoint members, who would meet and write new standards. Depending on the starting point of standards development, writing new standards can take more than a year, possibly two. This process would include public comments both to the standards writing task force, the IQC, and later to the SBE. Once the SBE were to adopt new standards, then the entire Framework writing process would begin, again with the committees, the IQC, and of course several sessions of public comments. Once the new framework is adopted, the 30 month textbook development process would begin.

So…in the meantime…what do I do as a practical matter in my classroom?

The whole internet revolution…which is really another post 1989 world changing set of events… opens opportunities to go to original source documents (for one example: The Library of Congress. For another: The Yale History project). A host of websites have posted free lessons, most of which include source materials, for all grade levels in all social science discipline areas. Many of these are very much up to date, include recent events, and include various social science discipline perspectives. As students do many of these lessons, they are also practicing and improving their ‘common core’ English language arts skills, in content. The teacher will need to provide context and perspective, and can have students get far more into the real world of social studies than has ever been possible by reliance totally or even mainly on textbooks.

SACRAMENTO State Superintendent Tom Torlakson announced today that California is moving forward to improve the way educators teach history and social science by gathering public comment on a new framework.

“By updating the framework, California is making sure students benefit from the latest methods of teaching history and social sciences,” Torlakson said. “Learning these subjects helps students understand and shape the world around them, which will better prepare them for college and careers.”

The draft History–Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (Framework) will provide guidance for teachers, administrators, and parents on how to implement a curriculum, based on content standards in the classroom. The draft covers more recent historical events, reflects changes in the law since the last framework was adopted in 2001, and helps educators teach the critical analytical skills students need for 21st century careers.

The draft Framework and a “field review” survey are now posted on the California Department of Education’s History–Social Science Curriculum Frameworks Web page. In addition to participating in the online survey, people may also send comments on the draft Framework to hssframework@cde.ca.gov. The comment period will remain open until November 25, 2014.

All public comments received during the field review survey will be presented to the Instructional Quality Commission this winter for review and possible inclusion into the final Framework. There will be a second public review in the spring of 2015. The State Board of Education is scheduled to take action on the final Framework by May 2015.

For more information on the development of the draft Framework, visit the California Department of Education’s History–Social Science Curriculum Frameworks Web page.

[Go to the <History-Social Science Curriculum Frameworks> web page--type the address into your browser--which is also in the California Dept of Education (www.cde.ca.gov) website. The survey is the first item. The Framework itself is in chapters and each chapter has to be separately opened. Additional comments can be sent to: hssframework@cde.ca.gov.]

From the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (CDE)State Board of Education Authorizes Work to Resume on History-Social Science Curriculum FrameworkOn September 3, 2014, the State Board of Education approved a revised timeline and guidelines for the update of theHistory-Social Science Curriculum Framework for California Public Schoolsthat was suspended in 2009.At its meeting on September 17-18, 2014, the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) will be approving the current draft framework for a 60-day field review as required by theCalifornia Code of Regulations.Then the revised timeline, guidelines, and the full text of the framework will be posted on the CDE Web site athttp://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/hs/cf/along with a survey instrument that will allow members of the public to make comments on all or part of the draft document. The field review survey will remain open through November 25, 2014. Members of the public may also submit comments on the framework tohssframework@cde.ca.gov.

The History­-Social Science Subject Matter Committee of the IQC will meet on December 18, 2014, to discuss the field review survey and recommend edits to the draft framework. All meetings of the IQC are open to the public. For more information about the IQC, including meeting agendas, visithttp://www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cd/index.asp.

Teachers are invited and encouraged to post comments to the Instructional Quality Commission during the 60 day field review period, noted above. This is the one chance to impact the Framework. The timeline calls for the Framework to be presented to the State Board of Education my May 2015.

1. According to the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) passed into law last summer, LEAs are given historic flexibility to spend state resources (including Categorical funding streams) the way they think works best for their students and community needs. However, the same LCFF law require districts to formulate -- with the input of the public and educational stakeholders -- "Local Control Accountability Plans" (LCAPs) detailing their priorities and how they will be spending these resources; these plans must be submitted to the state by July 1, so LEAs are busily holding public meetings and doing surveys to gather the input of stakeholders.

2. LCAP will set the policy and budgetary goals of your district for the next several years; the State Board of Education has provided LEAs a general template for performance indicators to be included in their LCAPs, but most of the details will be left to individual districts. This LCAP moment presents one of the best opportunities to insist that History/Social Science (or if you prefer to use a politically salient term used by politicians, "Civics") instruction and knowledge be included as something all schools should be held accountable for delivering to all K-12 students (at all grade levels).

3. You can help coordinate the active participation of your instructor colleagues, parents and even local business owners in your community. Inform them when your district will be holding public meetings to get LCAP input; eventually your school district board will have to vote upon the recommended LCAP, at which time this will be another opportunity to make our pitch for HSS education.

4. Attached is a two-page document that several statewide stakeholder groups of considerable influence has endorsed, related to "Civics Education" (this terms is used broadly to incorporate all the four disciplines within Socials Studies, including History, Economics, Geography and Civics). This document connects the dots between the State Board's template of LCAP criteria (such as successful implementation of Common Core) to HSS instruction, and therefore we recommend you print-out and use this as a leave-behind to your public presentations.

Governor Brown signed (early September 2012) the most recent bill that asks the State Board of Education to consider adopting the updated, revised History Social Science framework after the Department of Education finishes work on the new English and Math frameworks. This major step forward in the process of adopting the revised framework advances the process for new materials. The revised framework is currently in draft form, and can be viewed on the CDE website.